Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692551›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

Digitizing the Informed Consent Process: A Review of the Regulatory Landscape in the European Union.

Evelien De Sutter, Janos Meszaros, Pascal Borry, Isabelle Huys

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Informed Consent: Legal Obligation or Cornerstone of the Care Relationship?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Evelien De SutterDivision of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Janos MeszarosDivision of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabelle HuysDivision of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Rapid technological advancements are reshaping the conduct of clinical research. Electronic informed consent (eIC) is one of these novel advancements, allowing to interactively convey research-related information to participants and obtain their consent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of establishing a digital, long-distance relationship between research participants and researchers. However, the regulatory landscape in the European Union (EU) is diverse, posing a legal challenge to implement eIC in clinical research. Therefore, this study takes the necessary steps forward by providing an overview of the current regulatory framework in the EU, relevant to eIC. Methods: We reviewed and analyzed the key EU regulations, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). We investigated the legality of eIC in several EU Member States, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. To this end, we contacted the medicines agencies of various countries to clarify the national requirements related to the implementation and use of eIC in clinical research. Our research was complemented by comparing the legal acceptance of eIC between the EU and the United States. Results: In the EU, a distinction must be made between eIC for participation in clinical research and eIC for processing the participants' personal data, complying respectively with requirements laid down by the CTR and the GDPR. On a national level, countries were classified into three groups: (1) countries accepting and regulating the use of eIC, (2) countries accepting the use of eIC without explicitly regulating it, and (3) countries not accepting the use of eIC. As a result, the regulation of eIC through laws and guidelines shows a large variety among EU Member States, while in the United States, it is harmonized through the Code of Federal Regulations. Conclusion: Various requirements must be considered when implementing eIC in clinical research. Nevertheless, requirements across the EU Member States may differ significantly, whereas, in the United States, efforts have already been made to achieve a harmonized approach.

Indexed as

clinical trialClinical Trials Regulationelectronic informed consentethicsGeneral Data Protection Regulationprivacy

Identifiers

PMID35692551
PMCPMC9174519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.